my2cents
04-24-2006, 10:27 AM
I friend of mine forwarded this email to me in which Tyler Hamilton responds to a question from another cyclist (a very good one at that!). Note - I have delated the names from the email addresses.
------------------------------------------------
To: xxxxxxxxxx@yahoogroups.com
cc
Subject: An e-mail from Tyler Hamilton
This is worth reading...especially you NIH people. I was impressed that he responded in such detail. It's difficult to think that he's not innocent... at least of what he's accused of.
I'll be pulling for him in September.
Tyler Hamilton <xxxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:47:10 -0700
From: "Tyler Hamilton" <xxxxxxx@gmail.com>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Subject: TH Guest Book
Dear Jxxx.
Great question. When I had my first hearing and expected to return to racing in April of 05, this was my first question as well. The truth is we have never pin pointed the exact reason why my tests turned out the way they did although we are fairly sure what went wrong. There is a remote chance something about me physically caused the results. I do suffer from a number of medical conditions - the most concerning of which are hormonal that may or may not be at the root of all this.
The better explanation however, is lab error. The methodology they use to conduct the HBTT is called flow cytometry. It's a very finicky method and is primarily used for white cell analysis not red. In this instance, the labs are using a methodology in an unorthodox way, testing protein cells (antigens) that little is known about, and using reagents (antibodies) to conduct this test outside of their intended use.
The reagents used in this test were designed for agglutination testing, not flow cytometry. Even the authors of the methodology noted in their published papers that more work needed to be done to validate these reagents and in an ideal world -- better materials would be preferred. When they ran my test, they didn't even have reagents that were AS GOOD as those used in the published methodology. And the published methodology recommended finding better reagents, so this is very concerning. Especially since the reagents were never validated for flow cytometry to begin with.
The labs who ran my test did some proficiency testing in the weeks prior. They found that some of the reagents they used that were manufactured by certain suppliers created test results that appeared to be mixed populations when they knew they were working with single population blood. What we know is that in August and Septemeber of 2004 the labs were having difficulty securing enough reagents to run the test. There were absolutely not enough to run validation testing AND the actual test so they just decided to run the actual test. This was actually a large part of USADA's defense for why they didn't do validation testing - they said there was not enough antibody available that could be validated and used for testing. This is because antibody is released from manufacturers by batch and vary in quality batch to batch. So, in theory every batch needs to be validated before it's used for testing. USADA said there was not enough time or money or materials available to do this.
What we assume now, is that over the last 18 months, the labs have secured the best antibody available to run this test. The test is being performed in 5 labs in Europe and was reinstated for the Turino Games. (It was on hold while my case was pending). We assume they have corrected things because my case was very expensive to adjudicate and the labs don't want to have to keep facing people like me fighting the charges against them.
My own medical experts from MIT, Harvard Medical School, Puget Sound Blood Center, Georgetown U, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, etc., were never able to duplicate my test results or explain them. Part of this is due to the fact that if you do not have access to the batch of reagents used for your test - you cannot exactly duplicate the test.
We also tested my blood for chimerism and ruled that out as a cause. My samples were DNA tested by USADA and a chimerism expert I hired from Austria.
So, upon my return to competition, as difficult as it is for me to do - I have to have faith that they've corrected the problems with this method and I will not test positive. Some conventional thinkers say that if I did test positive again - that it would be a nightmare for everyone involved. First, they would have to allege I was certifiable to chance testing positive at this point in my life - and second they'd have to combat that doping actually caused the 1st and 2nd results. A 2nd result would almost certainly prove there was a problem with the test. So it would be a risk for them.
I'm not really sure why this test exists in the first place. In all my years in sport, I've never heard of anyone doing this. People die in hospitals every day from well matched transfusions. Certainly we would have heard of an athlete having complications by now if this was really going on. And, it's worth noting that a single unit of transfused blood would only provide performance enhancing benefits for 3-5 days. But - on the flip side, you could potentially test positive for up to 4 months (the detection period of a homologous transfusion). Who could rationalize risking their life, health or stroke to race fast for a few days? Why would anyone do this?
That's what I know. It's hard to trust this system at this point in my career but it's what I have to do. Thanks for writing in.
Best wishes,
Tyler
Tyler,
I just read the interview you gave with dailypeloton.com. I appreciate the offer to ask you a question. I'm going to take you up on it:
I'm not entirely read-up on the science behind the "homologulous" test, but I understand some basics. If the test is still administered, and you do have a chimeric twin or otherwise are prone to test positive for this test without doping, aren't you concerned about testing positive again upon your return to sanctioned racing?
Along the same lines, if you're blood condition wasn't a temporal quirk, can't you demonstrate through tests on stored blood or a string of current samples that you naturally test positive for the test? (In the way that some get medical exception for exceeding 50% hematocrit through demontrating that they're naturally high)
I've been wondering about that for a while.
Anyways, I wish you the best with your upcoming return to racing. You're easy to route for b/c you don't cloak your suffering and I'll continue to be a fan.
--Jxxx
Jxxx Xxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxx, XX USA
Mar 23, 2006 at 4:25 PM
E-mail:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------
To: xxxxxxxxxx@yahoogroups.com
cc
Subject: An e-mail from Tyler Hamilton
This is worth reading...especially you NIH people. I was impressed that he responded in such detail. It's difficult to think that he's not innocent... at least of what he's accused of.
I'll be pulling for him in September.
Tyler Hamilton <xxxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:47:10 -0700
From: "Tyler Hamilton" <xxxxxxx@gmail.com>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Subject: TH Guest Book
Dear Jxxx.
Great question. When I had my first hearing and expected to return to racing in April of 05, this was my first question as well. The truth is we have never pin pointed the exact reason why my tests turned out the way they did although we are fairly sure what went wrong. There is a remote chance something about me physically caused the results. I do suffer from a number of medical conditions - the most concerning of which are hormonal that may or may not be at the root of all this.
The better explanation however, is lab error. The methodology they use to conduct the HBTT is called flow cytometry. It's a very finicky method and is primarily used for white cell analysis not red. In this instance, the labs are using a methodology in an unorthodox way, testing protein cells (antigens) that little is known about, and using reagents (antibodies) to conduct this test outside of their intended use.
The reagents used in this test were designed for agglutination testing, not flow cytometry. Even the authors of the methodology noted in their published papers that more work needed to be done to validate these reagents and in an ideal world -- better materials would be preferred. When they ran my test, they didn't even have reagents that were AS GOOD as those used in the published methodology. And the published methodology recommended finding better reagents, so this is very concerning. Especially since the reagents were never validated for flow cytometry to begin with.
The labs who ran my test did some proficiency testing in the weeks prior. They found that some of the reagents they used that were manufactured by certain suppliers created test results that appeared to be mixed populations when they knew they were working with single population blood. What we know is that in August and Septemeber of 2004 the labs were having difficulty securing enough reagents to run the test. There were absolutely not enough to run validation testing AND the actual test so they just decided to run the actual test. This was actually a large part of USADA's defense for why they didn't do validation testing - they said there was not enough antibody available that could be validated and used for testing. This is because antibody is released from manufacturers by batch and vary in quality batch to batch. So, in theory every batch needs to be validated before it's used for testing. USADA said there was not enough time or money or materials available to do this.
What we assume now, is that over the last 18 months, the labs have secured the best antibody available to run this test. The test is being performed in 5 labs in Europe and was reinstated for the Turino Games. (It was on hold while my case was pending). We assume they have corrected things because my case was very expensive to adjudicate and the labs don't want to have to keep facing people like me fighting the charges against them.
My own medical experts from MIT, Harvard Medical School, Puget Sound Blood Center, Georgetown U, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, etc., were never able to duplicate my test results or explain them. Part of this is due to the fact that if you do not have access to the batch of reagents used for your test - you cannot exactly duplicate the test.
We also tested my blood for chimerism and ruled that out as a cause. My samples were DNA tested by USADA and a chimerism expert I hired from Austria.
So, upon my return to competition, as difficult as it is for me to do - I have to have faith that they've corrected the problems with this method and I will not test positive. Some conventional thinkers say that if I did test positive again - that it would be a nightmare for everyone involved. First, they would have to allege I was certifiable to chance testing positive at this point in my life - and second they'd have to combat that doping actually caused the 1st and 2nd results. A 2nd result would almost certainly prove there was a problem with the test. So it would be a risk for them.
I'm not really sure why this test exists in the first place. In all my years in sport, I've never heard of anyone doing this. People die in hospitals every day from well matched transfusions. Certainly we would have heard of an athlete having complications by now if this was really going on. And, it's worth noting that a single unit of transfused blood would only provide performance enhancing benefits for 3-5 days. But - on the flip side, you could potentially test positive for up to 4 months (the detection period of a homologous transfusion). Who could rationalize risking their life, health or stroke to race fast for a few days? Why would anyone do this?
That's what I know. It's hard to trust this system at this point in my career but it's what I have to do. Thanks for writing in.
Best wishes,
Tyler
Tyler,
I just read the interview you gave with dailypeloton.com. I appreciate the offer to ask you a question. I'm going to take you up on it:
I'm not entirely read-up on the science behind the "homologulous" test, but I understand some basics. If the test is still administered, and you do have a chimeric twin or otherwise are prone to test positive for this test without doping, aren't you concerned about testing positive again upon your return to sanctioned racing?
Along the same lines, if you're blood condition wasn't a temporal quirk, can't you demonstrate through tests on stored blood or a string of current samples that you naturally test positive for the test? (In the way that some get medical exception for exceeding 50% hematocrit through demontrating that they're naturally high)
I've been wondering about that for a while.
Anyways, I wish you the best with your upcoming return to racing. You're easy to route for b/c you don't cloak your suffering and I'll continue to be a fan.
--Jxxx
Jxxx Xxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxx, XX USA
Mar 23, 2006 at 4:25 PM
E-mail:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com